googologywikiaorg-20200223-history
User talk:Andrejoyce
This guy is either Andre Joyce, Michael Halm, or someone else. But, I'm pretty certain that this guy is someone else. King2218 (talk) 12:20, June 30, 2014 (UTC) Oops, nvm. King2218 (talk) 14:24, June 30, 2014 (UTC) I am too either Andre Joyce or Michael Halm, not someone else. Either way, the googoo- system is very inconsistent with how it's defined in the Googology page. It should be (2^x)^x, so googool is 2^2500 ~ 4E752. WikiRigbyDude (talk) 19:50, June 30, 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback. I think I've fixed up problem. I've had to change computers and web editing programs more than once since the page was originally written. I've been self-taught since learning my programming back in grad school when we used punched cards. Um what? Whichever way, this is worthy of going on Cloudy's timeline. Relation How are you related to Michael Halm? Are you friends, relatives, or are you two the same person? EDIT: nvm King2218 (talk) 22:48, July 1, 2014 (UTC) Edits It is great that you are so active here. But please, add categories to your pages. That saves a lot of work for us. Thanks. (Btw, the pages should have the categories: Numbers, Googol series, Numbers by André Joyce, and a level or class) The classes can be seen at Category:Classes. Most of the googo- numbers are in class 2. Wythagoras (talk) 08:36, July 2, 2014 (UTC) I'm still learning my way around here. Do you mean more internal links? I guess I'll have to learn the classifications and categories and start classifying and categorizing. Calculating those hundred-plus digit numbers is work too, but I'm sure as a googologist you know that. There are an infinite number of fininte number out here, almost none of them named, studied, classified or categorized.Andrejoyce (talk) 12:32, July 2, 2014 (UTC)Andrejoyce "There are an infinite number of finite numbers out there, almost none of them named studied, classified, or categorized". This is more or less true. However, due to the vast size of the sub-realm of numbers that googologist's have explored some system of organization had to be devised. The fact is, the numbers we deal with are of such absurdly varying scales that it is best to think of them as existing in separate "orders" as distinct kinds of numbers where no number in a lower order can be compared to a number existing in a higher order, rather than thinking of the difference as merely one of degree (even though in reality this is true, since all these numbers are finite and possess all the same fundamental properties). Although no universally accepted classification system exists, most systems are variations on a basic scheme. We can think of numbers as being classed into a series of Numeric "Epochs" which cover certain ranges of values. These Epochs can often be classified by the level of recursion involved. As an example, we can speak of a general "tetrational number class" as those numbers most naturally expressed using tetration assuming the numbers can not be easily expressed in a smaller notation. Typically I measure The Tetrational Epoch ''starting at the end of the ''hyper-exponential Epoch ''(around 10^10^1,000,000) and ending at the limits of ''tetration ''with double-digit arguments (around 10^^100). The system I use differs slightly from the one used on this site, but there is a common tendency to think of numbers being placed in orders based around what notation is most natural for expressing them. Sbiis Saibian (talk) 22:48, July 2, 2014 (UTC) As a syncretic googologist I have be dealing with primes and cryptology in lower (sub-hyper-exponential) levels, and I guess haven't kept up on the vast number of fast-growing notations. Those approximations in the different notations are helpful, but shouldn't every notation be translatable exactly into every other one, even if it's not "natural". Please be patient with this "old dog". @Andre Joyce You raise a very interesting theoretical question, but before I provide an answer, let me explain what I mean by "natural". A notation is a ''natural choice ''for the description of a number if it can be described in that notation in a ''reasonable number of characters. What constitutes a reasonable number of characters? It has to actually be possible to write out (and/or store) the characters in full. It is hard to say exactly at what point this occurs, but it's common practice to use the number of particles in the observable universe as an upper-bound. Since there are around 10^80 particles, the argument goes, one can not store more than 10^80 bits in the known universe. Thus, if the description in a particular notation would require more than 10^80 characters than it is an unnatural choice of notation. The common parlance is to say the notation becomes unwieldy. ''In practice this typically happens well below 10^80 characters at around 100 to a 1000 characters. For expressions stored in a computer this may include ''millions, billions, ''or even ''trillions ''of characters. Because of this, ''decimal notation ''(our ''native number system) becomes impractical around 10^100. Of coarse, in principle every integer can be described uniquely within decimal notation, but only an infinitesimal fraction of the integers can actually be written in this notation! At this point we are forced to switch into another notation or else integers outside of this range remain inaccessible ''to us. I believe ''googology roughly begins ''where our ability to use decimal notation ends. Under this scheme, all ''googologically large numbers are numbers with more digits than we could ever actually write out. This puts an upper-limit of the smallest googologically large ''number at around 10^(10^80) *. Other notations are needed to get beyond this monolithic barrier. * ''Note: Written in this form'' 10^(10^80) only requires 10 characters. Well within reason. Other notations may be devised to go further, but at a cost. These notations, unlike ''decimal notation '', are typically not ''number notations ''so much as functions, which take numbers and return larger ones. The basic principle is that we can return larger numbers for smaller ones, and thus reduce the required number of characters. This is usually done with the following stipulations: (1) Every Positive integer returns a larger result (This is known as being ''Everywhere Abundant) (2) The larger the initial integer the larger the associated return (This is known as being Strictly Increasing). Under these stipulations, such a function can never describe the number 1, since every positive number must return a larger positive integer, and the smallest positive integer is 1. The best we can do is return the successor. In this case every positive integer is represented by the function except 1. However, in this case we have a function which does no better than decimal notation. If we want to describe googologically large numbers then we are forced to return googologically large numbers for small ones. But this can not be done without skipping ''vast amounts of numbers inbetween! What this means is that a googological notation worth it's salt must return a ''proper subset ''of the integers. Thus by definition such ''functions ''can not return every possible integer. So some integers (the vast majority in fact) are not describable using the functions return values. Notations are a slightly more complicated concept than a function, but this suggests that notations can not really describe all the numbers, and therefore there is no necessity that one notation always be ''translatable ''to another notation. That doesn't conclusively show that there isn't always a translation, but let's consider for a moment a practical implication of what has been said so far. Let's say for argument sake that there was always a translation into another notation. Let's further lift the requirement that the description be ''natural. ''Remember when I said about the distances between googologically large numbers being so vast that they can be treated as existing in separate classes all together? Now I'll provide a little more detail. The first thing you need to appreciate is that all notations, not just decimal notation, have the same fundamental limitations. We can only write a very small finite number of characters in any given notation to describe a number. Therefore for every notation there is some finite number which is ''inaccessible ''to it. Just how far apart are these notations relative to each other? Say Notation A is more powerful than notation B. '''Numbers in A are ''so much larger ''that in order to express them in B it would require a number of characters only boundable in A!' Think about that. It sounds like it's practically infinite. In otherwords ... for all notations other than A or those of equal or greater strength, all descriptions end up being not just alittle longer ''but almost as long as the number itself! We are talking ''googological numbers of characters! So even if every number in every notation were translatable into another ... it would be completely impractical! To answer the more theoretical question of whether it's at least always possible in principle, is a more difficult question to answer. It depends on what you mean by notation. A notation typically is a complex set of rules for how to resolve legally formatted expressions the notation can recognize, interpret, and convert into numbers. For example, Hyper-E interprets expressions of the form Ea(1)#a(2)#...#a(n) where a(1)~a(n) are an ordered set of positive integers. What is interesting is ... that these numbers do not necessarily have to be written in decimal notation, which it is assumed Hyper-E can interpret by default. These numbers could also be expressed in Hyper-E Notation, and the notation would be able to interpret them as numbers. A question arrises as to whether we should give Hyper-E a universal interpretter which would recognize any ''numeric format. However if this were the case, then we could write Cascading-E inside of Hyper-E, or any arbitarily powerful notation, and we would have to conclude that our "notation" was arbitrarily powerful. This is why we wouldn't allow universal interpretation. So let's say only decimal notation or Hyper-E expressions are allowed as a number format. In practice, there will be numbers larger than any which can be reasonably expressed in the notation. However, even if in principle we had no restriction on the number of characters ... there will still be vast numbers of numbers that Hyper-E can never express. Why? Because all Hyper-E is built on the function f(n) = 10^n, and this means Hyper-E can only be used to express powers of 10. So a number like 7,625,597,484,987 can not be expressed ''exactly ''in Hyper-E. On the other hand this is easily expressed as 3^^3 in Knuth-Arrows. So as you can see, we can actually show examples of when there does not exist any equivalent expression in the other notation. There is a ''trivial way, ''however, in which every expression in one notation might be described in another. Let's say our ''interpreter ''is able to interpret ''decimal notation, ''the ''notation in question, and any of the following elementary functions : { + , * , ^ , ! }. In this case we can always express any number in any notation simply by taking the appropriate sum of terms. Recall however that a googological function typically can not return "1". Therefore it has no way of generating a "'units" term. There will by necessity be a smallest number that the notation can express, then a next smallest, and so on. For Hyper-E these are 10,100,1000,10000,100000,...etc. But without a units term we'd be force to cheat by introducing decimal notation. Thus to express a number like 24 we would need something like E1+E1+4. But as long as we can include decimal notation and addition it's trivial that we can express all numbers. So does this really count? So basically to sum it up, practically speaking, not every notation can actually be translated into another in a reasonable space, and even in principle there are many expressions in one notation which can not be expressed exactly in another even given unlimited space. What googologist's do however is bound ''one notation in another. It is always possible to write a larger number than a target number in any given notation. For sufficiently large targets the notation will not be able to ''bound ''it with a reasonable number of characters. This is why you won't see ''chain arrows ''used to express something like a ''goppatoth. ''However many notations are roughly equivalent in strength. When this happens both notations will be able to ''bound ''the other with roughly the same number of characters. Thus the comparisons act as a kind of equivalence class. Only comparable notations will be shown. Notations which are too weak will not be shown because they would require almost as many characters as the number they are trying to bound. Sbiis Saibian (talk) 00:30, July 24, 2014 (UTC) Quick tour around the article formatting *Number should be bold *Source using and the references tag under sources *Decimal expression in code preformatted or in , but keep it consistent. *Template: Numbers by Andre Joyce in the see also section. *Categories. Thanks. Have fun editing! Wythagoras (talk) 19:24, July 3, 2014 (UTC) :Please, we demand quality over quantity. Can you follow these guidelines? Wythagoras (talk) 09:09, July 17, 2014 (UTC) ::That reminds me of this. Hmmm... -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 13:46, July 23, 2014 (UTC) Sources Hi André, I've seen that some of your contributions, such as little bigger little googol and -dhex, are not in the source page that you gave. We have a policy that content in the wiki's mainspace needs to be traceable to an external, semi-permanent source; this is similar to Wikipedia's citation policy, but much more relaxed. If you wish for the content to remain here (and I'll leave it be for now), please add these numbers and functions to your own site as well. Alternative, you can publish your work in blog posts, which don't require sources. Thanks, and sorry about the confusion! you're.so. 22:01, July 9, 2014 (UTC) :I hate to be a jerk, but in a few days or so or so I'll be forced to delete the unsourced googologisms if they aren't also on your own article. Your content is welcome here as long as it meets our very lax citation policy. you're.so. 06:21, July 12, 2014 (UTC) Again, many of your numbers, especiallu your prime numbers, don't in provided sources, and some of them don't even have source. Not to mention articles (like Gooproviji) which don't even give the value of number. On another note, I'd like to ask you to not create multiple articles for same thing (like cyplev and little bigger little googol or -dex and -dhex). Instead, choose one name, create article with that name and just mention there another name of the number. Here also remember to provide a source for every name of that number. Thank you. LittlePeng9 (talk) 07:49, July 13, 2014 (UTC) Dominissimo For some reason, I would really like to know how this works. King2218 (talk) 16:30, July 11, 2014 (UTC) :Hmm I see I'm not the only one who's been snooping around Andre Joyce's other work. WikiRigbyDude (talk) 18:09, July 11, 2014 (UTC) :I finally have a scanner that works again, so I really ought to fix up the page by actually scanning the dominos as they play. Until then, try fizzbin. :::Skimmed it, sounds like a super-complicated version of chess. WikiRigbyDude (talk) 11:14, July 12, 2014 (UTC) :::I haven't really looked into it yet because I have more "important" things to do. King2218 (talk) 15:55, July 12, 2014 (UTC) :::IAndrejoyce (talk) 14:13, July 17, 2014 (UTC)The dominissimo and fizzbin pages have been worked on. Check them out. Lets play. Prefixes You'd better add them to the existing articles, with sources. Redirect these to the existing articles. Wythagoras (talk) 14:14, July 21, 2014 (UTC) :Answer me or you will be blocked. I have left enough messages. Wythagoras (talk) 14:18, July 21, 2014 (UTC) :Andrejoyce (talk) 14:48, July 21, 2014 (UTC) What? Which articles are you talking about being redirected where? Or is it redirected to? I've figure out how to insert links. Isn't that re-direction? This wiki business is still rather confusing. ::Okay, come to chat please. I'll explain it there. Sorry for the confusion. Wythagoras (talk) 14:52, July 21, 2014 (UTC) ::What I wanted to say, and what many others have said on your talk page, is that you have to source your pages and you should not create multiple articles for the same item. ::We have cleaned up some stuff after you. ::See for example Googolvi.(Googolvi) ::But it saves us a lot of work if you would do it good. ::I don't want to get the fun of the editing for you, but rules are rules and people have said it multiple times now. ::So I'd ask you to: ::*a) Source your pages and make sure that the numbers and prefixes are actually in the source. ::*b) Don't create multiple articles on the same thing and make sure to check whether there are articles. ::*c) Make sure that all articles you've created follow the guidelines in a) and b). ::*d) A bit of a cleanup in the other articles, like Googoccy. Compare it to Googolvi. Which one looks nicer? I stop talking now until you join chat. :::Wythagoras (talk) 15:04, July 21, 2014 (UTC) ::::Can you come to the Wikia chat now? Wythagoras (talk) 15:10, July 21, 2014 (UTC) ::::Andrejoyce (talk) 15:54, July 21, 2014 (UTC)I am new to this chatting and talking and blogging and I don't think I like any of it. Though I don't have a regular job or a family, I do have a life outside googology (i. e., other unfinished book to work on.) "My talk page" what's that? Am I there now? Or is this your talk page? :::: I think I've discovered some of the tricks to re-write mistaken and misunderstood entries in the history of an article.So I'm making progress on (b). :::: Wrt (a), I guess I was mistaken that this was a central reference itself like the OEIS, a place to put all the things that we haven't had time or space to put on the mathematic beyond the googol webpage or into the long overdue ''How to Get High ''book. The primes wiki is shamefully empty!! What good would an unpublished source or a broken link be as a reference?! I still don't understand what you mean by "actually in the source". How detailed a reference does it have to be to be. Who would read a book full of the digital expressions for numbers with hundreds and thousands of digits!! That's why OEIS became a website. :::: I've wasted enough time on this. Although I'm retired and without a family, I do have a life outside here. :::: Wythagoras, this harshness is uncalled for. Ultimately '''it doesn't really matter' if Andre's articles don't fall into the perfectly consistent formatting that's on most of the remainder of the wiki. You can fix it yourself if you want to, but your tone is not helping the situation. Andre, I am sorry about the hostile way you've been treated. I would like to let you know that you are welcome to continue contributing as before. (By the way, your googology page redirects to a 404 not found at the momemt.) you're.so. 16:04, July 21, 2014 (UTC) :I'm so sorry for being too pushy about defending the wiki's quality. I shouldn’t have done this, and you can continue as you want. It is the most important that everyone has fun, so do what you do to do. Wythagoras (talk) 16:30, July 21, 2014 (UTC) :@Andre Joyce :" I still don't understand what you mean by 'actually in the source'. How detailed a reference does it have to be to be. Who would read a book full of the digital expressions for numbers with hundreds and thousands of digits!! " ::I'd just like to address the issue you raised. First off, you don't have to include "thousands of digits" for it to count as a reference. Most googolism's contain more digits than anyone could actually write out anyway, so by that reasoning almost none of the numbers on this wiki should even be here. It's not a requirement of googology to know the digits of these numbers. It's nice, but it's not required. All that is needed is a definition in some ''notation. ::Secondly, you may be thinking that because your reference provides a general form such as the "googo-" function, that any name within that system is ''implicit ''in the reference. However this is not how it works. If the wiki were to simply add every number that ''could ''be constructed within a notation or naming scheme then we could never actually make mention of them all. The lowest level of my ExE naming scheme alone has 16,777,216 possible combinations. Does that mean everyone of those should be added to the wiki? Every number from 1 to a vigintillion has a canonical name in english, does that mean every one should be added? ::So how do we determine what get's added and what doesn't here at Googology Wiki? The rule is simple. Only numbers ''explicitly mentioned ''in the external source get added. (That is what is meant by "actually in the source"). Even if I added a number from my own ExE system, that was a perfectly legal construction from my own naming scheme, but which I never actually mentioned anywhere else, guess what ... it would get deleted. People are always trying to add numbers that follow naturally from various systems but are never explicitly mentioned on their respective sources. They always get deleted. The barometer for whether a googolism is properly sourced is an entirely binary decision. Just run a search on the googolism in the source, and if it doesn't show up it's not sourced. ::If you think about it, this is a sensible policy. It limits the amount of numbers to index in the wiki to those that people can actually create, and by proxy people can successfully index. You can ''systematically create millions, billions, or even infinitely many ''googolism's, but you are only likely to mention an infintesimal fraction of them. It is these ''mentions ''that make the entries "notable" by the Googology Wiki's standards. Notability is the key here, because there are vast numbers of googolism's which can be generated, but only a handful of these are notable and worth adding to the wiki. These are usually the first googolism's which introduce a new element to the system, in hierarchal systems. For non-hieararchal systems, these are probably the simplest cases which illustrate any particular rule. Note however, that just ''mentioning ''a googolism ''explicitly ''gives it instant noteriety, for the most part. So really, the source requirement has been set to the absolute bear minimum to prevent license to vandalize while also making submissions as easy as possible. ::In light of this, you have a few options. You could add all the numbers you want on your website and then they would be "in the source" as required. If this seems like double duty, then just leave it to someone else to catalogue the numbers from your site. Think about it this way ... if you are already taking the time to explicitly mention all these numbers on the wiki then why is it any different to be adding as many numbers to your source? Perhaps you find that all these numbers can not fit into an article format. Why not develop another format then? For example, you might try making a glossary of googolism's just like you did with all of your neolisms. ::Another thing to bear in mind is that we don't just catalogue numbers here. You may think it's unfair to not include a googolism as canon, simply because it wasn't explicitly mentioned. However, there is already a solution to that implemented on the wiki. Instead of mentioning ''thousands ''or ''millions ''of specific googolism's, what you can do is write an article about a particular system. Any number which can be generated from the system is "canonical", but that doesn't mean we need to have ''every ''canonical number listed on the wiki (due to what we might call notability, the same reason a ''trillion ''is an entry but not ''five hundred sixty-three trillion nine hundred eleven billion two hundred and three million sixteen thousand seven hundred and eighty-five). What would happen would be this ... the "interesting" googolism's would become an infinitesimal fraction of a sea of generic very long winded combinatorial googolism's. ::Also understand that even well known googologist's are not immune to this policy. Remember that this is essentially an "encyclopedia" of existing googology. It is meant to be a reflection of the body of googological literature, not to be that literature itself. Furthermore there are a number of practical benefits including fairness and maintaining quality control. A totally "open" system would only invite vandalism and hijacking of the wiki. People would just try to flood the wiki with their own googolism's and crowd out others (This actually happened in what is playfully called the "Made-Up Number Era" in the wiki's early history), and we'd have no way to keep up with the volume to check and make sure they were well defined, or even provide any systematic size-order to them. ::What do you think? Is this policy so unreasonable? Sbiis Saibian (talk) 18:54, July 21, 2014 (UTC) :::Very well said. WikiRigbyDude (talk) 21:06, July 21, 2014 (UTC) :::Early in the creation of this wiki, I briefly pondered this issue. My viewpoint — one that I still hold — is the "nobody cares" clause. I'm not being sarcastic here; what I'm saying that if everyone involved is okay, then it doesn't matter whether someone is creating millions of articles. you're.so. 23:17, July 21, 2014 (UTC) ::::Indeed, I still don't understand why I thought it was my job to make all articles perfectly following some stupid rules taking the fun away for both of us. Wythagoras (talk) 05:57, July 22, 2014 (UTC) Long live Andre Joyce Nathan da' R. 02:06, January 30, 2017 (UTC)